Under the headline “I formula fed. So what?”, Kathryn Blundell says in this month’s Mother & Baby that she bottlefed her child from birth because “I wanted my body back. (And some wine)… I also wanted to give my boobs at least a chance to stay on my chest rather than dangling around my stomach.”

She goes on to say: “They’re part of my sexuality, too – not just breasts, but fun bags. And when you have that attitude (and I admit I made no attempt to change it), seeing your teeny, tiny, innocent baby latching on where only a lover has been before feels, well, a little creepy.”

She concedes that “there are all the studies that show [breastfeeding] reduces the risk of breast cancer for you, and stomach upsets and allergies for your baby. But even the convenience and supposed health benefits of breast milk couldn’t induce me to stick my nipple in a bawling baby’s mouth.”

Thanks bunches, ’sexual empowerment’! You’ve now made nurturing a child “creepy”. Many websites, like Lactivist, are upset over the negative, and misleading, message that the above article sends about breastfeeding and the benefits thereof. That is an issue; breastfeeding is frowned upon far too often and many women succumb to the pressures of family or work, and wean their babies earlier than they actually want to.

I breast fed my daughter for nearly two years. She weaned herself but, admittedly, I would have likely cut her off at age two regardless. Because, unfortunately, if one breast feeds older babies, they are often looked upon as if they should be wearing Birkenstocks, making tie dyes, and following around Lilith Fair in a volkswagen van.

But, there is another issue here that I find equally disturbing. What bothers me immensely is the fact that women now see their breasts as “fun bags” and as something meant for “lovers” only and not as a part of nurturing and motherhood. This concept epitomizes the very worst in female and motherhood degradation and it shows just how much damage the “sexual empowerment” fallacy, pushed by the Leftist Femisogynists, has caused. The thought that women should exist solely as sex objects is now rampant — even amongst women themselves.

The theory behind this whole article, in a woman’s parenting magazine, is that motherhood and nurturing a child is, as they always claim, a punishment. Something that results in the cramping of one’s “empowered” style. Sex is super fun! Motherhood? Not so much. Also, creepy. And anyone who says otherwise is a nutty wing nut liar!

They have ended up diminishing women and womanhood itself with these constant attempts to demonize motherhood and to try to turn it into a punishment and a detriment to one’s happiness. Instead of realizing that being a life bearing nurturer is one of the very best things about being a woman and is an attribute in and of itself, they constantly try to take that away, all in the name of some delusional perceived equality via sexual empowerment.

They’ve dehumanized women, as Kathryn Blundell’s article shows, by encouraging women to focus on sexual “equality”. That has now removed any requirement that women be treated as something other than a sexual toy – even by themselves. And now, this has culminated in the idea that being a sex object is more important than nurturing a child.

But oh-how-wrong they are. Guess what? Those concepts aren’t mutually exclusive. A woman can be a mother and a sexy and sexual being. A woman can nurture and breast feed her child, bonding in a way that brings so much joy that it honestly cannot be fully described, and still be sexually enticing. Considering yourself, and your body, as only a vehicle for sexual amusements is not empowering; it’s oppressive. Resenting the natural functions of your female body is not empowering; it’s enslaving.

Breast feeding isn’t creepy. What is truly creepy is when women dehumanize themselves and demean motherhood to the point where they see their breasts as nothing but “fun bags.” Not creepy, and actually empowering, is embracing all aspects of your feminity, including being a life bearing nurturer. That is sexy. Moms can multi-task, you know. We can be barefoot, in the kitchen and still practice getting pregnant.

Related

That’s weird. I tried to breastfeed, but I just *sucked* at it and made my peace with formula for my own sanity. If anything, I had an inferiority complex over whether not breastfeeding made me less of a woman, etc. In all honesty, I felt judged by the lactivist types, so I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for them.

The relationship between breastfeeding or not breastfeeding and my own sexuality never crossed my mind, but if it did I think I’d choose nurturing a lifelong bond with my child over a year of optimal sexiness. But then again, I don’t see why you would have to choose.

Newsflash: Funbags of any size are going to sag to some degree whether you breastfeed or not. At least that’s what I’ve heard.

Although we have no children together, my wife is a mother, and loves being one. If she thought that way, I’d think her unfit for motherhood–and if she’s that self-centered, I wouldn’t want her for my wife, either.

Bigger newsflash killtruck: breastfeeding does NOT cause saggy ” funbags”. Medical fact! Time causes saggy “funbags”. Not keeping your undergarments up-to-date ( and most moms don’t. They always put themselves last, for some reason) causes saggy “funbags”. Not using the appropriate undergarment for your particular ” funbags” causes sagging. Feeding your baby is what “funbags” are for.
The original article is really not about funbags( which ARE a great deal of fun regardless of a little sag) or babies. It’s about self-centered people who can’t put anyone, including their own child, ahead of their own selfishness. That’s what abortion is about, and what women’s rights and “women’s studies” are about. Look at this from another angle- Is it any wonder so many women who undergo mastectomy for breast cancer feel they will be unloved without their breasts with articles like this?

Wow. Funbags, even. That woman is friggin’ insane. Oh, and she should not have children.

What those types somehow fail to get through to their bubble-brains is that women, not men are capable of incubating a life within their body. Women, not men are capable of creating nourishment for their child within their body and feeding it to their child at the perfect temperature every time, without the use of bottles or bottle warmers, without all that extra work. Is that not amazing? Is that not miraculous? It’s certainly gives us more power than just lying on our backs and spreading’em. Being a Mommy is power, baby! We can do things that men cannot do, and that makes us indispensable. Life could not carry on without us, funbags or no. (Don’t worry, men, you’re indispensable, too.😉 But only the good men.)

And here’s a newsflash: Most of the good dads that I know actually think that a mother who is so caring and nurturing toward her child/ren is sexy.

I know a man who tells other men “Your dog is not your best friend. Your mother is your best friend. Remember that.” I wonder how many more generations that will be the truth. Will anyone still be able to say that when Mommies are more concerned with keeping their “funbags” firm than with actually being a mother?

Shit, if I had this moron’s attitude, my first child would have starved to death, because he wasn’t interested in anything but breast milk.

Also, I have a theory that attitudes like this one seriously contribute to numbers of horrible mothers who put having a “man” before caring for their children, which increases the number of children who are abused in various ways and/or murdered. I believe it is also a contributing facter in the rise in the numbers of female sex offenders.

Sorry,but I don`t get the “sexual equality” thing. I always thought that women were sexually superior since we men spend so much time and effort trying to get what you ladies have. Furthermore, most of us “good guys” understand gravity and age so we( I) don`t mind if your “funbags” sag a bit because they are still fun.

Good lord. Can you imagine what kind of mother this idiot will be? I struggled to breastfeed and my doctor told me that our societal reactions to it (like this woman displays) often act as a deterrent to women and affects their ability to breastfeed. I believe it. I managed 4 months with each child but had to supplement with formula. I gave it my best shot. And my boobs look better now than they did before I had kids–do yours Kathryn?

Holy moly! When all else fails gripe about a post one letter at a time.

“Was Kathryn Blundell speaking for anyone other than herself in that piece?” Technically, no, but many people will read her piece and think that all moms who choose not to breastfeed do it for her ridiculous reasons.

And I believe Lori’s point, which sadly devolved into the bottle-breast debate, was that modern feminism has twisted our perceptions of breasts to solely sexual objects and turned our nurturing instincts into a burden that needs to be triumphed.

I tend to think you’re clueless. Modern feminism is responsible for teaching women to resent their biology, their nurturing instincts as evidenced by Ms. Blundell’s limited, narrowminded view of her own breasts.

Actually, while breastfeeding may be a “women’s issue”, it is also a “people’s issue”. The mothers who may or may not be breastfeeding aren’t the only ones effected by it. The infants who are breastfed or not are involved here, and whether or not they are breastfed and their mother’s attitude towards breastfeeding do effect them. And these babies then grow up to effect society in some manner. And, as macleod pointed out, about half of them are male.

Also, I’ll have to find the information again to link to, but I had read that many women are uncomfortable with breastfeeding, viewing it as “indecent” or “gross”. This problem was more so with low-income women, who could have benefited financially from breastfeeding because of the money-saving aspects (let’s face it, formula is not cheap, but eating an additional 500 healthy calories a day to feed your baby is.

Again, I’ll have to find the information to link to, but the idea that breastfeeding isn’t as good, or is an inconvenience, began in the late 1800’s or early 1900’s. Women were told that breastfeeding was “unhygienic”, and that bottle feeding was better. This carried on until around the 1970’s or so, and was heavily promoted by the formula manufacturers (my mother had given me a copy of my vax records, and it had been provided by Enfamil). In many families of my generation, only the youngest sibling was breastfed. I know this was the case in both my and my husband’s families. So, essentially, that choice was taken away from women. For women to take it back would not only be empowering to women (particularly mothers), but would be extremely beneficial and empowering for their children and for future generations. That’s something only a true Feminist would consider… not just the here & now, or “Gee, I don’t think I want to deal with that sort of disruption to my sex life”.

Well, Blundell is what they call a “thought leader”. She edits a magazine, presumably read by moms, and she influences the writing in that rag in her role as editor. So she is, potentially, affecting breastfeeding in a lot of homes. Trust me when I say, it is frequently a battle to get moms to breastfeed. There is something about the two week mark. If you can get them past it, most women are content to go on forever. There are lots of barriers. The labor and delivery nurses are frequently not supportive because it takes more time to coach breastfeeding than it takes to stick formula in a newborn. Many of the people who are ” lactation consultants” are really not good at their job, and many hubby’s don’t like to share.
I always tell my moms there are three pluses to breastfeeding:
1) It’s always the right temperature
2) You can take it anywhere
3) The containers are much more attractive

As to whether this is a “womens” issue– Approximately half of the potential breasfeeding recipients out there at any given time are– male! It really does affect both genders.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that some of them very obviously don’t really care or have received woefully inadequate training. If you’re lucky enough to have insurance that covers it, it might be best to seek out an independent lactation consultant rather than the one staffed at the hospital. If you can find one that is a member of La Leche Legue, all the better (the good ones won’t make you feel inadequate if you’re actually unable to breastfeed, but instead will work to make you feel that you’re a good mom for doing your best in either case.)

Well, I don’t know Ms. Ziganto, but the reason I like her blog is that it stimulates discussion and she doesn’t feel compelled to control it. To stimulate a thoughful exchange of ideas is a great achievement. So, I’m not bothered that the article ” degenerated” into a conversation about breastfeeding. Where else should it go.
I’d be be somewhat cautious about Laleche, in that they frequently advocate for breastfeeding well beyond infancy. When a ten year old walks in, unstraps mom’s bra and starts sucking breastfeeding loses a certain aesthetic value.

10 year olds nursing… ew. That’s an exaggeration, right? I mean, it must be. I’ve known at least one mom who nursed hers until he was almost 5, and would have thought that odd if I hadn’t learned that it’s the norm in a couple other countries. But 10?

I would feel weird about a 4 year old nursing, but at least they’re not in kindergarten yet. x^p
My first nursed until he was nearly 2&1/2 (the last 6 or so months was night-nursing as part of his bedtime routine). He weened himself about 1&1/2 months before his baby brother was born. Not sure how long this one will nurse, but he’ll be weened before he’s 3.

It’s not an exaggeration, or an isolated incident. We have a whole 60’s refugee movement here that refuses immunizations, breast feeds long past any possible health benefits, and of course, doesn’t shave anything or use deodorant

Now see, maybe it’s because I’m a guy, but I didn’t read the same vitriol into that argument that you seem to have. This seemed to be more of a bit of a slap at the breastfeeding activists who proclaim that you’re not a good mother if you bottle-feed. (I’ve got friends like that.) The point is that breasts are intended for sexuality as well as nurturing, and if a mother chooses not to breastfeed, that should indeed be her choice.

The only time that’s NOT true is when it affects another life. In other words, abortion, because it kills another human being, is not a matter of choice. Breast or bottle? That is indeed a woman’s choice to make. The baby should live either way. Is the breast better? Certainly…

I’ve seen marriages fall apart after children are born because when the wife goes into “mothering” mode, she has a hard time seeing her body as sexual, and will deprive her husband of sexual contact.

My point is, don’t take one woman’s point of view as final authority, even for the flakes on the Left. This is simply a matter of choice, and it was a choice that was hers to make.

When I first started breastfeeding, I found the idea of having a grown man at my boob kind of weird (and it IS a lot more weird than having a baby there, when you think about it). I got over that though, and now I don’t really see a problem with being both a nurturing mother and a hot lover in the same body. And please, “fun bags”? How juvenile.

The line’s engaged http://www.zoji.com/1230679 free forbidden lolita pics white girl has no tits, but hey, more than a mouthful is a waste. She does have a nice phat ass though, and thats what daddy likes.

We work together little lolita girl peeing i’m so horny..i lost my *** bitch left me for some son of a bitch..I decide show her photos for all *** you want see her naked photos you can find it on my profile in information..

Can you put it on the scales, please? child lolita sex pic WOW this girl is something else! She was not born, she was bred. That can be the only explaination for that body perfection. BONUS: her face is gorgeous! Plus the short hair style compliments her slender neck and HUGE rack!

You Know You Want To RSS Me!

Vote and stuff

Subscribe to Me! You know, via email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 267 other followers

Snark. And Boobs!

Exposing Asshattery in Washington, DC (and elsewhere if it makes me froth at the mouth), from a dame’s point of view. Hence, the snark and boobs. Probably should have said nag and boobs, but snark has a better ring to it. Contact info: Snarkandboobs@gmail.com

Stimulate Me!

Minds out of the gutter! Not THAT way. The Stimulus Package way. Oh .. that sounds just as bad. Oh, well.